During his trial, alleged mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger decided not to testify on his own behalf, calling the proceedings a “sham.” But in the new documentary “Whitey: United States of America v. James J. Bulger,” directed by Joe Berlinger, Bulger defends himself against charges that he was a longtime FBI informant and that he killed two women.

Bulger was convicted of a racketeering indictment that included involvement in 11 murders, and controlling a web of drug-dealing, extortion, money-laundering and gun-running from the 1970s to the 1990s. He was missing for 16 years before he was arrested in 2011. In November, he was sentenced to two life terms plus five years in prison.

In the film, Bulger’s voice is heard in recorded phone conversations that he had with his defense attorney, J. W. Carney Jr. The documentary, which premiered this week at the Sundance Film Festival, shows Carney directly asking Bulger if he was ever an informant. Bulger can be heard saying “I never, never, never cracked,” and lists examples from his past when he refused to give names under pressure.

In a later scene, when Carney asks Bulger about a 700-page informant file that was kept on him, Bulger says, “I never knew it existed…I was the guy who was paying so I got the answers.” The mobster goes on to say that he paid law-enforcement officials handsomely for information on wiretaps, surveillance and advance knowledge of search warrants and indictments.

In more snippets of phone conversations interspersed throughout the documentary, Bulger claims he once secretly met Jeremiah O’Sullivan of the Department of Justice New England Organized Crime Task Force, with whom he came to an agreement that resulted in mutual protection. In another recording, Bulger denies involvement in the murders of two female victims, Deborah Hussey and Debra Davis.

“Whitey” director Berlinger said including the phone recordings of Bulger’s voice in the film is “historic.” “We’ve heard James Bulger largely only in surveillance and wiretaps that were from a couple decades ago, and a little audio introduced at this trial — a few minutes of recordings of him talking to relatives, when he didn’t know he was being recorded.”

“I’ve never seen a case where someone has passed into such mythic cultural status — there are a dozen books and a number of TV shows,” Berlinger added. “‘The Departed’ still claims to be referring to Whitey Bulger. There are two major features films in the works – a Matt Damon and Ben Affleck feature, where Matt will play Whitey, and a Scott Cooper film with Johnny Depp playing Whitey Bulger. Here’s a criminal who has first name recognition, and yet we’ve never heard from the man himself.”

The phone conversations with Bulger were recorded after the verdicts in the case had been reached, Berlinger added, and he marked the dates clearly in the film.

It was at Berlinger’s request that defense attorney Carney agreed to arrange the recordings, and Bulger was aware that he was being filmed. “I see no impropriety in a defendant who’s having a phone conversation with his lawyer allowing someone else to be present to overhear the conversation,” Carney said. “This is frequently done when a defendant asks that members of his family be present when the defendant speaks to the lawyer.”

Carney said he and co-counsel Hank Brennan had won Bulger’s trust so that when Berlinger wanted Bulger to speak in the film, “[Bulger] had to know that the words would not be slanted or distorted, but would be used exactly as he said them.”

He said that Bulger will never see the documentary, nor will he be interviewed in this manner again.

As for whether Bulger is to be believed, the director and the defense lawyers have differing opinions. Brennan, who is now working with Bulger to appeal the verdict (Carney has withdrawn from the case), said as an advocate who has spent thousands of hours with Bulger, “there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s telling the truth.”

But Berlinger, whose previous documentaries include the “Paradise Lost” trilogy and “Brother’s Keeper,” said while he admires the defense lawyers, “these are advocates. I’m an objective storyteller. I have no idea if [Bulger] was telling the truth. The film does not purport that what anybody is saying is the truth. My style of filmmaking is to let everybody have their say.”

To that end, Berlinger also interviews the prosecutors in the trial — Fred Wyshak, Brian T. Kelly and Zachary Hafer — and gives them a chance to respond to each of the defense team’s claims in the film. For example, Wyshak calls the assertion that Bulger wasn’t an FBI informant “preposterous,” and says on camera, “He used the FBI and they used him. He doesn’t mind being called a murderer, a criminal, a drug dealer, but he doesn’t want to be called an informant.”

‘Whitey: United States of America v. James J. Bulger’

Sundance

In the film, Kelly also responds to claims that Bulger was enabled by widespread government corruption, saying an attack on the government by the defense team is “not a novel technique,” and calls it “trying to confuse the jury. Trying to take jury’s eye off the ball.”

Berlinger for his part says he respects the prosecutors and defense attorneys equally. “The portrayal in the film is definitely questioning the ethics and procedures that have gone on in this case by the Department of Justice, but not personified by Wyshak and Kelly,” he said. He added that the prosecutors weren’t open to being interviewed during the trial, and wanted only to be interviewed together.

“They were initially a little distrustful of us because they saw we were spending significant time with defense,” he said. “I was very honest. I was very clear that I think there will be things in this film when they see it that they won’t like. I also wanted their point-of-view and I think the film fairly acquits their point-of-view.”

Berlinger said one of his disappointments about Bulger’s trial was its narrow scope. “That doesn’t mean I’m siding with the defense. That doesn’t mean that I want Bulger to get out of prison or believe what he’s saying,” he said. “But there are many family members interested in the truth who want to get to the bottom of what happened in Boston. The trial didn’t allow a full and open airing of those issues. The goal of the film is to provoke the inquiry that was held at the trial.”